Wilks v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wilks v. State

61 So. 475, 7 Ala. App. 117, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 31

DecidedFebruary 6, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 61 So. 475 (Wilks v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilks v. State, 61 So. 475, 7 Ala. App. 117, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 31 (Ala. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, P. J.

Over tbe defendant’s objection be was required to proceed to tbe selection of a jury from tbe list of 28 regular jurors wbo were not engaged in tbe trial of another cause, and wbo were competent to try the defendant. His claim was that be was entitled to have tbe lists include tbe names of all tbe regular jurors impaneled for tbe week, though some of them were at tbe time engaged in considering another case. We do not think that such a claim can be sustained. Tbe court properly required tbe selection of tbe jury to be proceeded ivith as tbe number of regular jurors competent and available for tbe trial of tbe case bad not been reduced below 24. — Acts Special Session 1909, § 32, p. 318; Gresham v. State, 1 Ala. App. 220, 55 South. 447; Dorsey v. State, 107 Ala. 157, 18 South. 199.

It is enough to justify tbe court’s refusal to give written charge 2 requested by tbe defendant that it is not so expressed as to convey tbe idea that tbe supposition mentioned must be one arising from or suggested by tbe evidence adduced. — Yarbrough v. State, 105 Ala. 43, 50, 16 South. 758.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WALKER, P. J.

Over tbe defendant’s objection be was required to proceed to tbe selection of a jury from tbe list of 28 regular jurors wbo were not engaged in tbe trial of another cause, and wbo were competent to try the defendant. His claim was that be was entitled to have tbe lists include tbe names of all tbe regular jurors impaneled for tbe week, though some of them were at tbe time engaged in considering another case. We do not think that such a claim can be sustained. Tbe court properly required tbe selection of tbe jury to be proceeded ivith as tbe number of regular jurors competent and available for tbe trial of tbe case bad not been reduced below 24. — Acts Special Session 1909, § 32, p. 318; Gresham v. State, 1 Ala. App. 220, 55 South. 447; Dorsey v. State, 107 Ala. 157, 18 South. 199.

It is enough to justify tbe court’s refusal to give written charge 2 requested by tbe defendant that it is not so expressed as to convey tbe idea that tbe supposition mentioned must be one arising from or suggested by tbe evidence adduced. — Yarbrough v. State, 105 Ala. 43, 50, 16 South. 758.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 475, 7 Ala. App. 117, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilks-v-state-alactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack